UKIP are no different to any other Political Establishment, they are seeped with corruption. Farage on one hand bleets on with his Anti-EU rhetoric, but has no qualms about riding on its gravy train.

Luigi

UKIP cannot seem to make any progress towards getting an MP elected to the British parliament. But the other parties BNP and the English Democrats are having even less success than UKIP.

I believe that the anti-EU parties are too right wing. The left of centre is now empty. Labour have moved over to the right, and now only worry about the squeezed middle. There is no party that claims to speak for the working class any more.

The Social Democratic Party still believes in socialism. The SDP is the only party that believes in a Buy British Campaign. The SDP is the only party that believes in Balanced Free Trade. The SDP is now the only party in the field that claims to be left of centre.

I have spent about £5,000 on General Elections for UKIP and got 2.5% in 2005, and 3.5% in 2010. I was leafleting continually for UKIP for about 6 years nonstop.

I was gutted in 2010 to lose my deposit after leafleting the whole area twice during the lead up to the 2010 election. That is 80,000 leaflets and was a lot of hard work. This does not include the free leaflet drop from the Post Office. In both of my UKIP elections this free leaflet drop was not done very well at all. I complained to the Post Office but go nowhere.

I can well understand your frustration. I felt the same way back in the 80s, when I was in fact a founder member of the original SDP. A lot of people put in a lot of hard work, and in 1983, in conjunction with the Liberals we got the best third party showing since well before 1945. But we still only won a handful of seats.

When clause 4 of the Labour party constitution was reformed in 1995 and Labour finally became electoral again, I felt the need for a separate 'social democratic' party had passed anyway, and I re-joined the Labour party.

That would still be my view today. I regard myself as a social democrat, but feel the natural home for social democrats is the Labour party. It is also the best vehicle for bringing about electoral success for social democratic policies.

I wish UKIP well, but their progress is slow and I think it might be the name that is the problem.
UKIP must also state its support for the working class with more specificity.

I can well understand your frustration. I felt the same way back in the 80s, when I was in fact a founder member of the original SDP. A lot of people put in a lot of hard work, and in 1983, in conjunction with the Liberals we got the best third party showing since well before 1945. But we still only won a handful of seats.

When clause 4 of the Labour party constitution was reformed in 1995 and Labour finally became electoral again, I felt the need for a separate 'social democratic' party had passed anyway, and I re-joined the Labour party.

That would still be my view today. I regard myself as a social democrat, but feel the natural home for social democrats is the Labour party. It is also the best vehicle for bringing about electoral success for social democratic policies.

Could you suggest an alternative name for UKIP ?

Plutonium

You are thinking along the same lines as me Plutonium. I voted for Tony Blair in 1997 because I believed that things could only get better.

But I was wrong and things only got worse, and worse, and worse.

I got discouraged being a UKIP parliamentary candidate and continuously campaigning for six years.
In 2005 I got 2.5%. In 2010 I got 3.5%. After spending thousands of pounds I felt there was something wrong with the name.

When I joined UKIP way back in 2004, I remember that senior people then were saying then, that the name of UKIP should be changed.

The Labour Party did very well when it changed its name to New Labour.

UKIP should keep the product recognition that it has built up over 18 years. None of the UKIP leaflets have ever mentioned the working class. They should change their policies to target the working class with more specificity. They should talk more about reducing unemployment and building more council houses.

Once these policies are in place to appeal to the working class then change the name.

You are thinking along the same lines as me Plutonium. I voted for Tony Blair in 1997 because I believed that things could only get better.

But I was wrong and things only got worse, and worse, and worse.

I got discouraged being a UKIP parliamentary candidate and continuously campaigning for six years.
In 2005 I got 2.5%. In 2010 I got 3.5%. After spending thousands of pounds I felt there was something wrong with the name.

When I joined UKIP way back in 2004, I remember that senior people then were saying then, that the name of UKIP should be changed.

The Labour Party did very well when it changed its name to New Labour.

UKIP should keep the product recognition that it has built up over 18 years. None of the UKIP leaflets have ever mentioned the working class. They should change their policies to target the working class with more specificity. They should talk more about reducing unemployment and building more council houses.

Once these policies are in place to appeal to the working class then change the name.

What about New UKIP ?

I don't think personally that you can blame UKIP's lack of success on its name. It is simply down to the electoral system that we have in this country.

It's pretty simple. In most constituencies there is a two-horse race between one of the three largest parties. In the majority of cases it is Tory v Labour, in many rural areas is it Tory v Lib Dem, in much fewer cases it is Labour v Lib Dem. But the point is that voters feel they have to support the lesser of two evils in order to 'keep the other side out'.

The evidence for this can be seen in the much different election results for the European Parliament, since this was done by proportional representation. Voters can vote for the party they genuinely support, without fear of 'wasting their vote'. As a result, in 2009 UKIP got 16.5% of the vote - still not enough for an electoral breakthrough, but far better than their results in Westminster elections, and actually ahead of Labour who got a dismal 15.7% - surely their worst result in a national election for a century.

The UKIP had the same name in the European elections as it does in Westminster elections.

As for the idea of "New UKIP", I really don't think that will cut the mustard, to be honest. The idea behind "New Labour" was the message that the party had put behind it all the nuttiness, extremism and infighting of the 80s, that made the party unelectable, and had genuinely changed. BTW the name of the party was never officially changed, "New Labour" was simply a slogan. If you want to change UKIP to "New UKIP" then you have to explain how the party has actually changed. Just sticking "New" on a name isn't enough. You could change the name of the SDP to "New SDP", with rather more justification than in the case of UKIP, but I doubt if it would get you any more votes.

I don't think personally that you can blame UKIP's lack of success on its name. It is simply down to the electoral system that we have in this country.

It's pretty simple. In most constituencies there is a two-horse race between one of the three largest parties. In the majority of cases it is Tory v Labour, in many rural areas is it Tory v Lib Dem, in much fewer cases it is Labour v Lib Dem. But the point is that voters feel they have to support the lesser of two evils in order to 'keep the other side out'.

The evidence for this can be seen in the much different election results for the European Parliament, since this was done by proportional representation. Voters can vote for the party they genuinely support, without fear of 'wasting their vote'. As a result, in 2009 UKIP got 16.5% of the vote - still not enough for an electoral breakthrough, but far better than their results in Westminster elections, and actually ahead of Labour who got a dismal 15.7% - surely their worst result in a national election for a century.

The UKIP had the same name in the European elections as it does in Westminster elections.

As for the idea of "New UKIP", I really don't think that will cut the mustard, to be honest. The idea behind "New Labour" was the message that the party had put behind it all the nuttiness, extremism and infighting of the 80s, that made the party unelectable, and had genuinely changed. BTW the name of the party was never officially changed, "New Labour" was simply a slogan. If you want to change UKIP to "New UKIP" then you have to explain how the party has actually changed. Just sticking "New" on a name isn't enough. You could change the name of the SDP to "New SDP", with rather more justification than in the case of UKIP, but I doubt if it would get you any more votes.

Plutonium

UKIP need first to state their support for the working class with more specificity. Only after changing their policies on unemployment could they be worthy of the name New UKIP.

Yes you are right the the proportional representation system of the Euro Elections helps UKIP to do better in the Euro Elections. The first past the post system is very hard on small parties, but the Greens are a even smaller party than UKIP and they aleady have one MP.

Labour may have not officially changed its name to New Labour, but this was the name it used all the time during elections, and everyone thought that this was the new party name